DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18732#0274
r m i
it was with no little forefight, Sir W. C. when
building the exhibition room of the Royal Academy,
contrived fo many corners, and introduced fuch va-
riety of lights, both true and falfe, as that room con-'
tains. It has indeed been complained of by fome
perfons not in the fecret, but its convenience and ap-
plication is now too evident to be denied. Yet, after
all, what fervice to the arts, or entertainment to the
public, can be derived from expofmga number of pic-
tures, whole fmall fliare of merit fhould have pre-*
eluded their appearance ? Let quality not quantity ever
be the criterion of the ftate of art.
The prefent exhibition, contains numerically, an
unufual collection of fubje£ts: but with regret we
give it as our opinion, very few excellent performan-
ces. We fee no improvement, no advance to perfec-
tion, no general progrefs, among thofe who are to
fucceed our prefent ARTISTS of deferved fame.
In proof of this pofition, we fhall divide our remarks
into, thofe on eftabiifhed names; and, thofe on rifing
pretentions ; by which method a clear idea (we hope)
of the prefent ftate of arts may be acquired.
Sir JOSHUA REYNOLDS,
Is an artift whofe works we have fo often admired,
that we are fomevvhat over-forward to applaud him.
We fee in all his productions, the man of fcience,
fkill, and obfervation ; the guidance of an eye which,
looks Iharply about him, and which having been ac-
cuftomed to inveftigate appearances to their origin,
to trace effects to their caufes, and to reduce combi-
nation to its principles, has acquired a learning and
facility highly to be commended. But Sir J. does
not
it was with no little forefight, Sir W. C. when
building the exhibition room of the Royal Academy,
contrived fo many corners, and introduced fuch va-
riety of lights, both true and falfe, as that room con-'
tains. It has indeed been complained of by fome
perfons not in the fecret, but its convenience and ap-
plication is now too evident to be denied. Yet, after
all, what fervice to the arts, or entertainment to the
public, can be derived from expofmga number of pic-
tures, whole fmall fliare of merit fhould have pre-*
eluded their appearance ? Let quality not quantity ever
be the criterion of the ftate of art.
The prefent exhibition, contains numerically, an
unufual collection of fubje£ts: but with regret we
give it as our opinion, very few excellent performan-
ces. We fee no improvement, no advance to perfec-
tion, no general progrefs, among thofe who are to
fucceed our prefent ARTISTS of deferved fame.
In proof of this pofition, we fhall divide our remarks
into, thofe on eftabiifhed names; and, thofe on rifing
pretentions ; by which method a clear idea (we hope)
of the prefent ftate of arts may be acquired.
Sir JOSHUA REYNOLDS,
Is an artift whofe works we have fo often admired,
that we are fomevvhat over-forward to applaud him.
We fee in all his productions, the man of fcience,
fkill, and obfervation ; the guidance of an eye which,
looks Iharply about him, and which having been ac-
cuftomed to inveftigate appearances to their origin,
to trace effects to their caufes, and to reduce combi-
nation to its principles, has acquired a learning and
facility highly to be commended. But Sir J. does
not